> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> (3) Finally, there is apparently a procedural oddity with this > document. The people who put it together apparently held > extended discussions on the ietf-languages mailing list, a list > that was established largely or completely to review > registrations under 3066 and its predecessors. My > understanding at this point is that their good-faith impression > was that the discussions on that list were essentially > equivalent to those of a WG. I believe I can say that it was done this way because it followed the example of the development of RFC 3066, which to my knowledge (as a member of the IETF-languages list at that time) happened in the same way. It was certainly done with a good-faith impression that appropriate procedures were being followed. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
